Willie Jan, I make every effort to make the negatives perfect, but it's not always perfectly perfect. And that's fine. Some tweaking is to be expected in printing, I think.
But to me, the more effort I put into understanding my materials, the more I get out of them, and the printing and post production gets so much easier! Do I get a better print? Yes. I can make a print that's almost as good from a less pristine negative, but it will take longer, and I will use more paper to get there. To me that is a struggle and I feel like I am wasting paper because I didn't get the negative right.
So, to me it's worth the effort, but I don't have to put in a whole lot of effort either. All I do is adjust the agitation, and subsequently the development time, to get a nice negative. I don't do anything else to it. It's actually a pretty simple system based on fairly approximate metering and development adjustments.
If I look at my pictures i printed 3 years ago, I almost fall onto the ground from laughing. I also spent half a year getting into the material. I see it as improving 5% here, 5% there... eventually getting an much more improved print.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
Same here, Willie Jan. Same here. It would be terrible if we didn't constantly be seeking improvements. We would become stagnant.
I find that we agree on many things, and we want the same thing - beautiful prints. The road to the goal might be different, but in a way that's what makes it interesting!
In the graph at the top of this thread the red line data is roughly the same as that of the blue line data
between zones 4 and 6 but graphs higher than the blue for all other areas.
What other possbilities have you been able to acheive using your methods?
Can you independently control both ends at will?
What are the practical limits of your control methods?
The thread is some how related to this how-to, can anybody have a data to share.
I just wanted to dig up the corpse... I mean this thread and say that I have done some tests with the procedure described. And it works well. :)
It was also interesting to clearly see how my preferred EI would change between different lighting conditions. Easy enough to do the test and get a lot of information in return for the work done.
So, when going to this method of extended time and reduced agitation with a new film, how does one find the time necessary for the film to reach the zone 5 density? (or 6, I don't understand which is the center of the pivot)
Don't forget about chromium intensifier and selenium toning. Both add more density to the highlights than the shadows. If one underdevelops a bit and utilizes one of these techniques their negs will have straighter/longer H&D curves. I preferred selenium.
Center of the pivot depends on the subject.
Originally Posted by pierods
For landscape: Incident metering in open shade and subtract 1EV stop of exposure. Actually my yellow filter does this -1EV stop compensation and develop.
For development time like in this article I add 45% of time to the normal times available from manufacturers data sheet and follow similar agitation scheme.
I can confirm about the shadow detail and negatives print on Grade 2 with no or minimal effort.
For portrait: Almost similar but without filter.